AS CIE Law: Quick Memorisation Guide to Legal Terminology | AS CIE 法律：词汇术语速记指南

📚 AS CIE Law: Quick Memorisation Guide to Legal Terminology | AS CIE 法律：词汇术语速记指南

Mastering legal terminology is the key to unlocking top marks in your AS CIE Law exams. This bilingual guide breaks down core terms from criminal law, tort law, and contract law with clear definitions, memorable case examples, and simple memory hooks. Read each paired explanation to fix the concept firmly in your mind, and you will be able to recall and apply these terms confidently under exam pressure.

掌握法律术语是取得 AS CIE 法律高分的关键。这份双语指南用清晰的定义、难忘的案例和简单的记忆线索，逐一拆解刑法、侵权法和合同法中的核心词汇。每段英文与中文配对讲解，帮助你牢固掌握每一个概念，让你在考场上自信地回忆并运用这些术语。

1. Actus Reus | 犯罪行为

The term ‘Actus Reus’ (AR) refers to the guilty act or the external element of a crime. It can include a positive act, an omission where a duty exists, or a state of affairs. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove that the defendant’s AR was voluntary. Remember the mnemonic ‘AR = Action Required’: if there is no act, there is generally no crime. For instance, in a theft case, the AR is the appropriation of property belonging to another.

‘Actus Reus’（简称 AR）指犯罪行为或犯罪的外在要素。它可以是积极作为、存在义务时的不作为，或某种状态。控方必须证明被告的 AR 是自愿的，才能定罪。记住口诀 ‘AR = 必须有动作’：没有行为通常就没有犯罪。例如，在盗窃案中，AR 就是占有属于他人的财产。

2. Mens Rea | 犯罪意图

‘Mens Rea’ (MR) translates as ‘guilty mind’ and describes the mental element required for a particular crime. Different offences require different levels of MR, such as intention, recklessness, or knowledge. The principle of ‘MR = Mental Responsibility’ helps you recall that the defendant must have a blameworthy state of mind. Always check the specific MR required by the offence — for murder, it is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

‘Mens Rea’（简称 MR）意为”有罪的心理”，指特定犯罪所需的心理要素。不同罪名要求不同程度的 MR，如意图、轻率或明知。记住 ‘MR = 心理责任’ 就能想起被告必须具备可归责的心理状态。务必核实具体罪行所需的 MR——对于谋杀，就是意图杀人或造成严重身体伤害。

3. Causation | 因果关系

Causation links the defendant’s conduct to the resulting harm. It splits into factual causation — established by the ‘but for’ test (R v White) — and legal causation, where the defendant’s act must be a substantial and operating cause of the harm (R v Smith). An intervening act (novus actus interveniens) may break the chain of causation, but only if it is free, voluntary, and unforeseeable. Think ‘Factual = but for, Legal = blame attached’.

因果关系将被告的行为与造成的损害联系起来。它分为事实因果关系——通过”若无则不”检验法确立 (R v White)——和法律因果关系，即被告的行为必须是损害的实质且起作用的致因 (R v Smith)。介入行为（新介入行为）可能打断因果链条，但前提是该行为是自由、自愿且不可预见的。记住：”事实看若无，法律看关联”。

4. Omissions | 不作为

English law does not generally impose liability for failing to act — there is no ‘Good Samaritan’ law. However, an omission can satisfy the Actus Reus where a legal duty exists. Key duties arise from statute, a contract, a special relationship, assuming responsibility, or creating a dangerous situation (R v Miller). Use the word ‘DAILY’ to recall duty types: Danger, Assumption, Inserted by statute, Love/relationship, dY (contract).

英国法律一般不因不作为而追究刑事责任——没有”见义勇为”法。但是，如果存在法律义务，不作为也可以满足犯罪行为要件。主要义务来源包括：法律规定、合同、特殊关系、自愿承担责任，或制造了危险境地 (R v Miller)。用 ‘DAILY’ 巧记义务类型：D-制造危险，A-承担照顾，I-法律插入，L-亲情关系，Y-合同约束（contract）。

5. Strict Liability | 严格责任

Strict liability offences require proof of Actus Reus only — no Mens Rea is needed for at least one element of the offence. These are usually regulatory or social concern crimes, such as selling alcohol to a minor. The leading case Sweet v Parsley shows that courts presume MR is required unless the offence is truly regulatory. To remember, think ‘Strict = No MR component, full stop’.

严格责任犯罪仅需证明犯罪行为——至少对于犯罪的某一个要素无需证明犯罪意图。这类犯罪大多涉及监管或社会公益，例如向未成年人售酒。指导性案例 Sweet v Parsley 表明，法院推定犯罪需要犯意，除非是纯粹的监管性罪行。记住：”严格责任 = 绝对没有犯意成分”。

6. Intention | 意图

Intention is the highest level of Mens Rea. It can be direct, where the defendant desires a specific result, or oblique, where the result is a virtually certain consequence of the defendant’s act and the defendant appreciates this (R v Woollin). The model mnemonic is ‘DIrect = Desire It; Oblique = Almost Certain to Occur’.

意图是最高层级的犯罪心理。它可以是直接意图，即被告希望发生特定结果；也可以是间接意图，即该结果是被告行为的必然结果，且被告对此有所认识 (R v Woollin)。记忆口诀：”直接意图 = 想这样；间接意图 = 几乎必然发生”。

7. Recklessness | 鲁莽

In criminal law, the modern test for recklessness is subjective (R v Cunningham): the defendant must have forseen a risk of the prohibited consequence and unreasonably gone on to take that risk. For AS Law, avoid the abolished objective Caldwell test. Link the word ‘Cunningham’ with ‘C’, which also stands for ‘Conscious risk-taking’. This makes it easier to recall that recklessness requires awareness.

刑法中，现代的鲁莽检验采用主观标准 (R v Cunningham)：被告必须预见到禁止结果发生的风险，却仍然不合理地去冒这个风险。在 AS 法律中，避免使用已被废除的客观 Caldwell 标准。将 ‘Cunningham’ 与 ‘C’ 联系起来，’C’ 也代表 ‘Conscious risk-taking（有意识冒险）’，这样更容易记住鲁莽要求主观认知。

8. Negligence | 过失

Negligence in criminal law (rare) and tort law involves a failure to meet the standard of a reasonable person. The classic definition is in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks: ‘the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.’ Remember it as ‘Negligence = Not thinking like a sensible person’. For gross negligence manslaughter, the breach must be so serious as to deserve criminal punishment.

刑法（较少见）和侵权法中的过失，指未能达到一个合理人的行为标准。经典定义见于 Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 案：”未做一个合理人会做的事，或做了一个谨慎合理的人不会做的事。” 记忆为：”过失 = 你咋就不像个正常人呢”。对于重大过失杀人罪，该违反行为须十分严重，足以构成刑事处罚。

9. Duty of Care | 注意义务

In tort law, a duty of care is the first element of negligence. The landmark case Donoghue v Stevenson established the ‘neighbour principle’: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably foreseeably injure your neighbour. The modern Caparo three-part test requires (1) foreseeable harm, (2) proximity, and (3) it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. Think ‘Caparo = Covering Proximity And Reasonable Obligation’.

在侵权法中，注意义务是过失责任的第一个要件。里程碑式案例 Donoghue v Stevenson 确立了”邻人原则”：你必须合理注意，避免可以合理预见的、可能伤害邻人的作为或不作为。现代 Caparo 三步法要求：(1) 可预见的损害，(2) 紧密关联性，(3) 施加义务须公平、正义且合理。记忆为 ‘Caparo = 覆盖邻近与合理义务’。

10. Breach of Duty | 违反义务

Once a duty is established, a claimant must prove the defendant broke that duty by falling below the standard of a reasonable person. The court asks: would a reasonable person in the defendant’s position have acted differently? Factors include the likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone), the seriousness of harm (Paris v Stepney), the cost of precautions, and any social utility of the activity. Use the checklist ‘Breach = Below Reasonable Expectation At Common standard, Check Harm factors’.

一旦确立了注意义务，原告必须证明被告的行为低于合理人标准，从而违反了该义务。法院会问：处在被告位置的合理人本会采取不同做法吗？考虑的因素包括：损害发生的可能性 (Bolton v Stone)、损害的严重性 (Paris v Stepney)、预防措施的成本，以及行为的社会效用。使用清单记忆：”违反 = 低于正常合理人标准，审查损害因素”。

11. Offer and Acceptance | 要约与承诺

In contract law, a binding agreement requires a clear offer and an unconditional acceptance. An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specific terms, made with the intention that it will become binding upon acceptance (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball). Acceptance must mirror the terms of the offer and be communicated. Remember the mirror image rule with ‘Offer in the window, Acceptance matches it exactly — no extra terms allowed’.

在合同法中，具有约束力的协议需要明确的要约与无条件的承诺。要约是一种按照特定条款订立合同的意愿表示，一旦对方承诺即受约束 (Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball)。承诺必须与要约条款完全一致并传达给要约人。记住镜像规则：”要约如镜，承诺照映——一个多余字都不行”。

12. Consideration | 对价

Consideration is the price one party pays for the other’s promise — it makes a contract enforceable at common law (beyond a deed). Defined in Currie v Misa as a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee, it must be sufficient but need not be adequate. Past consideration is not good consideration, and performance of an existing duty is generally insufficient. The phrase ‘Consideration = Contractual Coin’ reinforces that it is the necessary value moving from the promisee.

对价是一方为换取另一方允诺而支付的代价——它使得合同在普通法上具有执行力（契据除外）。Currie v Misa 案将其定义为允诺人获得利益或受诺人承受损害；对价必须充分但不需对等。过去对价不构成有效对价，履行既存义务通常也不构成充分对价。记住：”对价 = 合同硬币”，它是从受诺人处转移的必要价值。

---

Published by TutorHao | Law Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）